P L D 1966 W (PLP)

The facts of the case are that the post of the Lambardar in this patti fell vacant on account of the migration of non‑Muslim Lambardar. On the 7th of July 1962, the Collector appointed one Ahmad Khan. Haji Khan and one Abdul Haq went in appeal to the Commissioner who remanded the case on the ground that Ahmad Khan was the brother of Lal Khan who was already a Lambardar in one of the pattis in the same village. After remand, the respondent also became one of the contestants. The Collector appointed Haji Khan as Lambardar. The respondent went in appeal to the Commissioner who accepted it. Hence this second appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at great length. There is evidence on record to show that the petitioner belongs to the majority community. He has more property as compared with the respondent. While the petitioner belongs to the village, the respondent is an outsider and cannot, therefore, be said to command the same influence as the petitioner. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that there were two Sayals already appointed as Lambardars in this village. They are Lambardars in separate pattis. So far as this patti is concerned, it has to be taken as a unit when considerations of appointing a Lambardar are under examination. The petitioner's claim cannot, therefore, be ignored simply because the Lambardar in the other two pattis are Sayals. The only point which is in favour of the respondent is that he is more educated but all the factors mentioned in rule 15 are to be taken into consideration before a final decision is given. The learned Commissioner mainly decided two points. One was about the respondent becoming a contestant after the remand. As the law stands, he was within his right to do sot and his claims could not be ignored on that ground. The other question decided by the learned Commissioner was about residence. There is conflicting evidence but the latest report indicated that the respondent had started actually residing in the village a few weeks before the final report was made. In the first instance, the question of residence is doubtful and in the second, even if it is presumed that the respondent is a resident, he is to contest with the petitioner in respect of all the factors mentioned in rule 15 of the Punjab Land Revenue Rules. The learned counsel for the respondent brought it to my notice that the learned Commissioner bad remarked that the grandfather of the petitioner was Lambardar. I do not find any evidence on record to support this assertion and the respondent cannot, therefore, claim any benefit therefrom. I have carefully considered the case and the arguments advanced by the learned counsel from both sides and am of the view that there was no justification for interfering with , the decision given by the Collector. I, therefore, accept the appeal, set aside the order passed by the learned Commissioner and direct that the order passed by the learned Collector shall stand. K. M. A. Appeal accepted.